I recently read a chapter in the book Powerful Learning. The chapter is titled “How Can We Teach for Meaningful Learning.” It is my opinion that all educators ask themselves this question every day. As a dedicated teacher, I want to be sure that every moment I spend with my students is memorable, effective, and beneficial to their academic and personal successes. I want to inspire them; encourage them to be lifelong learners and believers in their selves. How can I, one person, make this large of an impact on our future?
Reading “How Can We Teach for Meaningful Learning” has been an inspiring, motivational piece for me. It has confirmed some of my beliefs, as well as given me insight in how to grow as a meaningful educator. One of my beliefs that have been confirmed as a successful learning tool is that of working in small groups. However, in order for this technique to be a success, there are some guidelines that must followed. For example, the students must be guided by thoughtful curriculum with clearly defined learning goals (a purpose), well-designed scaffolds, ongoing assessment, and rich informational resources. As seen in many studies, when all of these guidelines are followed, the children have proved to do better on individual assessments, have more retention and meaning about the subject, successful at developing relationships and improving achievement, enhanced social interactions, time on task, and positive feelings toward peers. One statistic I found interesting is that Ginsburg-Block and colleagues established that “low-income students benefited more than high-income students, and urban students benefited more than suburban. Racial and ethnic minority students benefited even more from cooperative groups work than nonminority students.”
However, there are some challenges for educators when using collaborative learning. First, developing norms and structures within groups is difficult. Structure is important for positive group outcomes. As seen in a study completed by Yager, Johnson, and Johnson (1985) structured groups achieved higher scores on tests given, as well as retention. Next, developing tasks that support useful, cooperative work is another dilemma. Nystrand, Gamoran, and Heck (1993) found those who stayed in small groups longer had lower achievement. Their assigned task amounted to “collaborative seatwork,” not permitting student autonomy and student productions of knowledge. These students scored lower than those who were able “to interact over the substances of the problem, defining tasks as well as solutions, and constructing interpretations. Finally, developing discipline-appropriate strategies for discussion that support rich learning content is not easy. Students need guidance from the teacher and explicit opportunities to learn skills associated with developing effective arguments.
Overall, collaborative work is beneficial when prepared and completed correctly. In order for it to be valuable, “adolescents need “tasks allowing them to compare ideas, develop a train of thought, air differences, or arrive at a consensus on some controversial issue” for them to deepen their knowledge and understanding.” In addition, the “project” must have a meaning behind it; not completed just to finish a task. The classroom focus should be on “doing with understanding” rather than “doing for the sake of doing” (Barron et al., 1998). Small group and paired opportunities provide students with an enjoyable learning experience, more confidence, individual accountability, and produce stronger learning outcomes. What more could a teacher ask for?
